Study Case: “GreenThumb Agricultural IoT Network” GreenThumb…
Questions
Study Cаse: "GreenThumb Agriculturаl IоT Netwоrk" GreenThumb Sоlutions provides аn innovative IoT-based platform for precision agriculture, designed to help farmers optimize crop yields and resource usage. The system comprises a network of wireless sensors deployed across fields, which continuously monitor soil moisture, nutrient levels, ambient temperature, and humidity. These sensors transmit data wirelessly to a central farm gateway, which then uploads the aggregated information to a cloud-based analytics platform. Farmers access this data and receive actionable insights via a web portal and a mobile application. The platform also features automated irrigation controls, enabling farmers to remotely activate or schedule watering based on sensor data and predefined crop requirements. Farmers can set custom thresholds and receive alerts if conditions deviate. The system aims to minimize water waste and optimize fertilizer application, leading to more sustainable farming practices. Each farmer's data is siloed and accessible only via their unique, password-protected account. The mobile app connects over HTTPS, and data is encrypted in transit and at rest on the cloud servers. GreenThumb prides itself on its robust and reliable service, acknowledging that continuous operation and accurate data are critical for crop health and farmer livelihoods. The system provides basic anomaly detection for sensor readings (e.g., sudden, impossible drops in temperature) and logs all control commands sent to the irrigation system. While generally reliable, the remote nature of the sensors means they are exposed to the elements and potential physical access. Given User Story: As a GreenThumb farmer, I want to view the real-time soil moisture levels in my cornfield, so that I can decide if my crops need immediate irrigation. Task: Based on the Study Case: Acme University's Digital Course Hub, and the given User Story, you are to formulate two new stories: A) Evil User Story (10 points): Craft one "Evil User Story" that describes a malicious actor's goal from their perspective, leveraging a potential vulnerability or feature misuse identified within the study case. Your evil user story should follow the standard evil story format. B) Security Story (10 points): Based on the "Evil User Story" you created in Part A, formulate one corresponding "Security Story." This story should describe a security control or feature designed to mitigate the threat outlined in your evil user story. Your security story should also follow a security story-like format. Rubric A) Evil User Story (10 points) Criteria Excellent (10 points) Good (4-9 points) Needs Improvement (0-3 points) Format Adherence (4 points) The story perfectly adheres to the standard evil user story format. The story largely adheres to the format with minor deviations (e.g., slight rephrasing of components) that do not impede understanding. The story significantly deviates from the required format, making it difficult to recognize as an evil user story, or is missing key components. Relevance & Inferred Vulnerability (6 points) The evil user story leverages a potential vulnerability or feature misuse directly inferable from the study case (e.g., leaderboard, data sharing, sensitive data, 2FA for critical actions, third-party provider). The malicious outcome is plausible and well-defined. The evil user story is relevant to the case study, but the vulnerability/feature misuse might be less distinct or the malicious outcome less impactful than optimal. It still shows an attempt to infer from the text. The evil user story is generic, does not link to the study case, or the "vulnerability" is not inferable from the provided text. The malicious outcome is vague, illogical, or entirely disconnected from the scenario. Rubric B) Security Story (10 points) Criteria Excellent (10 points) Good (4-9 points) Needs Improvement (0-3 points) Format Adherence (4 points) The Story perfectly adheres to the standard security story-like format. The story largely adheres to the format with minor deviations (e.g., slight rephrasing of components) that do not impede understanding. The story significantly deviates from the required format, making it difficult to recognize as a security story, or is missing key components. Relevance & Inferred Vulnerability (6 points) The security story directly and effectively mitigates the specific threat outlined in the student's Evil User Story from Part A. The proposed security control/feature is a logical and inferable extension of security considerations mentioned in the case study (e.g., related to existing security, data privacy, and user control). The security story aims to mitigate the threat from Part A, but the mitigation might be slightly less direct, comprehensive, or the connection to existing security considerations in the case study is weaker, but still present. It demonstrates an attempt to assess the study case's security posture. The security story does not mitigate the threat from Part A, or the proposed control is irrelevant/generic. It shows no apparent connection or logical extension from the security considerations discussed in the case study.